Case Digest (G.R. No. 212256)
Facts:
Bitte v. Jonas, G.R. No. 212256, December 09, 2015, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are Farida Yap Bitte and the heirs of Benjamin D. Bitte (collectively, Spouses Bitte); the respondents are Spouses Fred and Rosa Elsa Serrano Jonas (Spouses Jonas). The dispute concerns a parcel of land at 820 corner Jacinto Street and Quezon Boulevard, Davao City (the subject property), originally under TCT No. T-112717 in the name of Rosa Elsa Serrano Jonas and later reflected as TCT No. T-315273 in the name of Ganzon Yap (married to Haima Yap, Spouses Yap).
In July 1985 Rosa Elsa executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of her mother, Andrea C. Serrano, authorizing sale of the property. In May–September 1996 Andrea’s son Cipriano offered the property to Spouses Bitte and received P200,000 (Sept. 3) and P400,000 (Sept. 10) as advances. To facilitate negotiations, Spouses Bitte paid Rosa Elsa’s round-trip airfare from Australia. Rosa Elsa returned and on October 10, 1996 executed a written revocation of the SPA; on October 11, 1996 the parties met but Rosa Elsa later withdrew from the transaction and repudiated the sale.
On October 17, 1996 Spouses Bitte filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Davao City, Civil Case No. 24,771-96, a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages. The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order on October 18, 1996 and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on November 8, 1996. While the case was pending, Andrea executed a Deed of Absolute Sale (dated February 25, 1997) conveying the property to Spouses Bitte. Rosa Elsa’s property had, however, been foreclosed and auctioned (annotated on title, Entry No. 1173153) and Spouses Bitte redeemed the property from the highest bidder on September 14, 1998 for P1.6 million, then sold it to Spouses Yap.
After procedural skirmishes in RTC-Branch 13 (including defaults declared against Spouses Bitte, dismissal or non-suit events, consolidation with Civil Case No. 27,667-99 filed by Spouses Jonas in RTC-Branch 9, and repeated failures of Spouses Bitte to appear), Branch 13 rendered a Joint Decision on January 18, 2007: it reiterated dismissal of Civil Case No. 24,771-96 and directed Spouses Bitte to pay Rosa Elsa P1,546,752.80 as the balance of the sale with 12% interest.
Spouses Jonas appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a September 26, 2013 Decision, reversed and set aside the RTC decision insofar as it pertained to Civil Case No. 27,667-99, declared the February 25, 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale null and void, ordered cancellation of TCT No. T-315273 and reinstatement of TCT No. T-112717 in the name of Rosa Elsa, and directed Spouses Yap (and those in possession) to vacate the property. Spouses Bitte’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on February 26, 2014.
Spouses Bitte filed this petition for review on certiorari und...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioners retain the personality to seek relief from this Court despite having been declared in default by the RTC?
- Are the issues raised reviewable by this Court given that they principally involve factual findings of the Court of Appeals?
- Were the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Spouses Bitte proven?
- Is the revocation of the SPA enforceable against third persons such that Andrea’s subsequent sale was unenforceable against Rosa Elsa (application of the doctrine of apparent authority)?
- Did Spouses Bitte have the legal personality to redeem the foreclosed property under Act No. 3135 (as amended) and Section 27, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court?
- Were Spouses Yap purchasers in good faith and for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)